The authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been repeatedly assailed by critics of the LDS Church on the grounds that is lacks any confirmatory archaeological evidence that supports its claimed historicity as an ancient record. Countless books, articles, DVDs and internet websites have ceaselessly repeated the following cacophonous refrain:
[Read more…] about The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Archaeology Question
The Weird and Sinister Beliefs of Mormonism
Christopher Hitchens, the belligerent and loquacious atheist author and social commentator, doesn’t like Mormonism very much. Granted, he doesn’t care much for religion at all, as is evidenced by his exceptionally distasteful book god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. But Mr. Hitchens seems to have a special place in his heart for disliking Mormonism. In his aforementioned 2007 screed, Hitchens devoted several error-riddled pages towards exposing Joseph Smith as a con man and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a racist, sexist, anti-intellectualist Orwellian hell of a cult. Shortly thereafter, Hitchens turned his aim towards Mitt Romney, the Mormon presidential candidate who has faced considerable opposition on account of his faith. Unsurprisingly, Hitchens had next to nothing complimentary to say about Mormonism. And most recently in his 2011 anthology of essays, Hitchens further makes several gratuitous cheap-shots at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.[1] It seems as though it is impossible for Mr. Hitchens to say or write the words “Mormon” or “Joseph Smith” without adding a plethora of pithy insults and disdainful remarks. His efforts are entertaining to observe, as Hitchens presses on in his anti-religious crusade and rails against the poor, benighted Mormons with a Quixotic gusto and indomitable zeal.
[Read more…] about The Weird and Sinister Beliefs of Mormonism
“A Most Remarkable Book”: Supplementary Reading
A Most Remarkable Book – Trailer
This week FAIR has released a new DVD exploring the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. “A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham” puts forth answers to various criticisms directed against the Book of Abraham, as well as provides evidence favorable to the Book of Abraham’s ancient authenticity.
[Read more…] about “A Most Remarkable Book”: Supplementary Reading
Allah, Zeus, and Elohim: A Question of Religious Tolerance
In his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation, Professor Daniel C. Peterson of Brigham Young University presented a paper on “Mormonism, Islam, and the Question of Other Religions”.[1] Professor Peterson is well qualified to speak on this subject, as he is a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies. A cursory glance of one biographical sketch online will quickly remind the reader that Professor Peterson is not only an authority on Islam, but religious studies in general.[2]
A few months before his presentation at the FAIR Conference, Professor Peterson published an article with the Mormon Times entitled “God’s sheep recognize his voice”.[3] It is something of a reader’s digest version of his FAIR presentation. In both the article and his FAIR Conference Presentation, Professor Peterson essentially argued that regardless of religious or cultural background, “God’s sheep recognize his voice, even when it’s in a different language or imperfectly heard. They follow him as best they can and will not lose their reward.” Thus, we as Latter-day Saints should follow the noble heritage of our predecessors (including Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde, and B. H. Roberts, to name only three) and extend tolerance and understanding towards those of other religious backgrounds in both word and deed. Our world is much too divisive, and religious strife only adds fuel to the fire. Although we should not compromise our uniquely cherished Latter-day Saints beliefs, we should not fall prey to religious dogmatism that can create contention amongst people of differing religious persuasions. Dr. Peterson’s ideas are noble and edifying, and I felt myself strengthened after listening to his presentation at the FAIR Conference.
However, not everybody is as taken with Professor Peterson’s ideas as I am. One particularly vocal anti-Mormon named Rocky Hulse has made it clear that Daniel C. Peterson is preaching nothing but rank blasphemy.[4]
Right off the bat Hulse makes it clear that “the first four paragraphs of this article set the stage of falsehood”. What are the shocking paragraphs which Mr. Hulse has in mind?
Trying to make their view seem merely a minor logical extension of my own, several atheistic acquaintances have assured me that there is little difference between us: They just happen to disbelieve in one more god than I do.
They seem to imagine that being a Latter-day Saint entails rejecting all non-Mormon religious experiences and disbelieving every doctrine of every other faith. This, however, is not true.
When Joseph Smith learned that the then-existing Christian churches were corrupt, that didn’t mean that they were totally wrong. To say that something is “corrupt” means that it has been damaged. We speak of “corrupted texts” or “corrupted files,” intending to say that they have been infected or tainted — not that their original content has been replaced by something completely different.
In fact, many mainstream Christian doctrines were and are substantially correct. There is indeed a God. He has a divine Son who came to earth, atoned for our sins, rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of his Father. Those who taught prayer, preached of the Savior and translated the New Testament during the centuries between the early apostles and the Restoration preserved and transmitted many central gospel truths.
Hulse continues to blast away at this heresy by asserting that “this attempt at revising the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith is grossly deceptive”. According to Hulse, Joseph Smith’s details of his First Vision disqualify Mormonism from any pretension to inter-faith ecumenicalism.
Here in the “First Vision,” Joseph Smith says the “Personage” who addressed him (later identified as Jesus) told him all churches were wrong and all of their creeds were an “abomination.” The Christian Creeds are Christian doctrine. The word “abomination” is defined as follows: “1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred: LOATHING.” It is quite clear from the text that, according to Joseph Smith, Jesus has “extreme disgust, hatred and loathing” of the Christian creeds and specifically defines all churches as wrong and teaching the doctrines of men. Yet, in the first four paragraphs of this article, Daniel Peterson very deceptively tries to gloss over Mormonism’s absolute attack against all churches, all Christian doctrine and all who profess Christianity.
Hulse then quote-mines the Journal of Discourses for a statement as equally un-ecumenical as Joseph Smith’s brazen assault on Christianity.[5] Notwithstanding, Husle’s arguments in this regard have been thoroughly refuted by Michael Ash, in his article “Does Mormonism Attack Christianity?”.[6] Furthermore, Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks have addressed this charge in their book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints.[7]
I mention this only in passing, since I wish to address the more egregiously erroneous claims made by Hulse. He is totally beside himself because of the fact that “this BYU professor and Mormon Apologist goes on in this article teaching that the Allah of Islam is the God of the Bible”. Here is the quote from Dr. Peterson provided by Hulse:
But what about non-Christians? Do they worship false gods?
Jews certainly don’t. Believing Jews accept the Old Testament, venerating the God who brought Israel out of Egypt, spoke through the prophet Isaiah and was proclaimed by Jesus (a Palestinian Jew).
But what of Islam? Isn’t “Allah” a false god? No. According to the Qur’an, Allah created the earth in six days, placed Adam and Eve in Eden and then inspired prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Sound familiar?
To this incredible blasphemy Hulse replies with certitude:
To draw the conclusion that “Allah” is the God of the Bible because a fictional book of scripture, the Qur’an, plagiarizes the characters and stories of the Bible is ludicrous, however, not without precedent. Mormonism does the same thing in our time. Mormonism draws from its fictional book of scripture, the Pearl of Great Price, claiming in creation that all human beings were born into a pre-existent world, having been sired by God the Father, who has a body of flesh and bones, and that Jesus was the first offspring of this Deity and that Lucifer was the second. This being foundational Mormon doctrine, Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and these two procreated beings are our older brothers in this non-Biblical doctrine.
But that isn’t the worst of it. What does Hulse consider to be the premiere blasphemy of Daniel Peterson? The fact that he is equating the false Muslim God Allah with the Word of John 1:1. As Dr. Peterson maliciously slurs in the Mormon Times article:
“Allah” is simply the Arabic equivalent of English “God,” related to the Hebrew “Elohim.” Moreover, Allah is the God not only of Muslims but of all Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. “In the beginning, (Allah) created the heavens and the earth,” reads Arabic Genesis. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (Allah), and the Word was (Allah),” says the Arabic version of John 1:1. “We believe in (Allah), the Eternal Father,” says the first Article of Faith in Arabic, “and in his Son, Jesus Christ.”
Hulse is incensed at this heresy. Hulse screams: “Jesus was the Word that became flesh and then “dwelt among us” (John 1:14), not Allah!” Unfortunately, though, the facts are not on his side. Perhaps Hulse is confused about how languages work, and how translations from one language to another works. Allow me a few moments to explain.
Here is the Greek text of John 1:1.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
The Greek word for “God” is θεόν or θεὸς (theos).
What follows are three different translation of the Greek text in English, German, and French. Note the word used to translate the Greek θεὸς:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New Revised Standard Version).
Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und das Wort war Gott. (Die Bibel: Einheitsübersetzung)
Au commencement était celui qui est la Parole de Dieu. Il était avec Dieu, il était lui-même Dieu. (La Bible du Semeur)
In these instances the Greek word θεὸς is translated into the English “God”, the German “Gott”, and the French “Dieu”. These are not differing unique English, German, and French deities but rather just the generic word in the respective language to express the Greek word. So it is with the Arabic word الله (Allāh). Recall that Arabic is a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew.[8] It therefore should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Hebrew word for God אֱלהִים (elohim), is closely related to the Arabic الله. That is not to even mention the Aramaic (the spoken language of Jesus) word for God (ʼĔlāhā), which is even more closely related to the Arabic. It is no different than the fact that the English word “God” is closely related to the German “Gott”. They are just two different words in two different languages being used to express the same idea.
Thus, in spite of Hulse’s protestations to the contrary, Professor Peterson is strictly correct. It is entirely appropriate to use the word Allah when translating the Bible into Arabic since Allah is the word in Arabic to denote “God”. Who would have ever guessed that Arabic speaking Muslims, Jews and Christians use the same Arabic word (Allah) to name the God they are worshiping? To illustrate by way of personal experience, when my family and I traveled to Israel in 2006 we sat in on a Roman Catholic mass attended by Palestinian Christians. Does anyone want to guess what word in Arabic we repeatedly and distinctly heard throughout this beautiful Christian liturgy?
Moving on. Hulse takes a swing at Professor Peterson, this time on the grounds that Dr. Peterson has grossly misrepresented Paul in Acts 17. Says Hulse: “In another grand deception, Daniel Peterson attempts to make the claim that Paul is actually equating the God of Israel with the Greek god Zeus.” Here is the relevant quote from Professor Peterson:
When the apostle Paul, preaching on Mars Hill, sought to connect with the pagan Athenians (Acts 17:24-28), he identified Zeus with Israel’s God: “For in him we live and move and have our being,” he taught, quoting the words about Zeus of a sixth-century B.C. Cretan philosopher. “As some of your own poets have said,” he continued, citing a third-century B.C. philosopher’s verse about Zeus, “‘we are his offspring.'”
Hulse bemoans this “truly deliberate deception” as “beyond the pale of deceit”. But, once again, Professor Peterson is correct. Paul is quoting two Greek poets, namely, Epimenides (or some would argue Posidonius) and Aratus.[9] Here is the section from Aratus’ Phaenomena that Paul was quoting:
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring…
That Paul was approvingly quoting Aratus (while at the same reapplying the meaning) is seen in Paul’s conclusion in the next verse of Acts 17, where the Apostle declares: “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill” (New International Version). It makes little sense for Paul to quote a pagan Greek poet unless he was intending to reinforce his own theological point, viz., that we are God’s offspring (Greek, γένος, species, race, genus, etc.) and thus should not consider God as an idol made of man’s artifice.
At the end of his Mormon Times article, Professor Peterson concludes with the following offering:
In the final volume of C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” a Calormene soldier named Emeth (= Hebrew “truth”) has been a sincere worshiper of the false god Tash all of his life. When, at the end, he meets Aslan and recognizes the true God, he expects severe punishment. But Aslan graciously reassures him that “all the service thou hast done to Tash, I accept as service done to me,” explaining that, although Emeth had been unaware of it, his honest devotion was actually to Aslan, rather than to Tash. “No service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.”
In a concluding rebuttal (I use that word loosely here), Hulse ends his screed thusly:
This teaching by BYU Professor Peterson is absolute blasphemy. Trying to use the “Chronicles of Narnia” as scripture to rationalize that any worship given to any god will be accounted by the God of the Bible as valid, is the epitome of reaching for straws; it’s pathetic really. God will not be mocked. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! There is none other and any devotion offered to false gods will not be accepted by the God of the Bible as worship to him. The Old Testament is clear that God is a jealous God and will not tolerate worship given to false gods; however, since Mormonism has incorporated polytheism (many gods) into their doctrine, the god of this world has blinded their eyes (II Cor 4:4).
Where exactly does Professor Peterson equate C. S. Lewis with scripture? I took it as an appropriate concluding reference to a respected Christian philosopher and theologian. Likewise, contrary to what Hulse maintains, I did not read this so much as Daniel Peterson granting license to worship any god willy-nilly, but rather that even those who serve “false” gods can still do good in the world and receive blessings from the Savior.
It is my hope that Rocky Hulse will take some time to calm down and read Professor Peterson’s more fully documented and expanded paper presented at the FAIR Conference. Likewise, I wish that anyone reading this blog post will take time to read Dr. Peterson’s remarks. Those who do will learn of the importance of religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue, which, unfortunately, is bereft in any of Rocky Hulse’s comments.
We live in a divisive world. Religious differences are sometimes used as further justification for this divisiveness. Usually those who further drive the wedge between people of differing religious backgrounds do so out of ignorance and fear. I am afraid that Rocky Hulse has done such with his knee-jerk reaction to Dr. Peterson’s article.
Notes:
[1]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org//FAIR_Conferences/2011_Mormonism_Islam_and_the_Question_of_Other_Religions.html
[2]: See his bio entry on Mormon Scholars Testify: http://mormonscholarstestify.org/151/daniel-c-peterson-2
[3]: Available at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705387043/Gods-sheep-recognize-his-voice.html
[4]: “Zeus, Allah, and Jesus in Mormonism, They’re One and the Same!”. Online at: http://www.mormonoutreach.org/topics/Zeus%20Allah%20and%20Jesus%20in%20Mormonism%20Theyre%20One%20and%20the%20Same.html. All subsequent quotations of Hulse are taken from this article.
[5]: The statement quoted by Hulse is from Brigham Young. “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Journal of Discourses, 6:176.
[6]: Available online: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSattack.pdf
[7]: Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 158-172.
[8]: Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), xxii.
[9]: Michael D. Coogan, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 219 [Acts 17:28f].
Ms. Erickson and CNN Redux.
Earlier last month I wrote a few words concerning an interview conducted by CNN of Tricia Erickson, a rabid ex-Mormon who exhibited an almost paranoid fear of the prospect of a Mormon being elected as president of the United States. I found her bigoted and offensive ranting far below the journalistic standards of CNN, and hoped that the entire episode would quickly be forgotten.
Unfortunately, Ms. Erickson has been given yet more air time on CNN to prattle away on the nefarious machinations of the “Mormon Church” and Mitt Romney, the prominent Mormon candidate for the presidency. Fortunately, a voice of reason, in the embodiment of CNN Belief-Blog co-editor Eric Marrapodi, was allowed to participate in the discussion between Erickson and Tim Foreman, who challenged Erickson to show a single example of a Mormon making a negative political policy choice on the basis of his commitment to Mormonism. (Not surprisingly, Erickson failed to provide any such example.)
One of the arguments Ms. Erickson used in her assault on the faith of the Saints and Governor Romney was the claim that Mormons are on a campaign to dominate the world (why else are there any Mormons who hold political offices?) and that according to Mormon doctrine the second coming of Jesus will include the establishing of a Mormon totalitarian regime based out of Jackson County, Missouri. And if that isn’t enough to disqualify Romney or any other Mormon from being president, also remember that Mormons, including Romney, believe they will become gods and have their own planet! I was especially offended at this misrepresentation of my faith. Only one planet? Egoistical/self-aggrandizeing Mormon that I am, I am not shooting low for only one planet but a universe of endless worlds to populate through endless Celestial sex with my many goddess wives. Or at least that is what Ed Decker has repeated told me through his sensationalistic video The God Makers. Considering that Ed Decker is one of Ms. Erickson’s primary sources on Mormonism, I am surprised that she conservatively restricted Mormon aspirations of godly dominion to only one planet in the hereafter. Get your facts straight, Ms. Erickson!
This is the second time that CNN, a respected news agency, has provided precious air time for a crank to spout off nonsense against the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Ms. Erickson has finally exhausted her time with CNN. We need less sensationalism and more serious journalism on the relationship between religion and modern politics. And we need it now especially with this upcoming election, wherein we have not one, but two potential Mormon candidates for the presidency. If ever there was a time when we as a people should look at the interplay between religious values and political policy that time is now. Ms. Erickson has now demonstrated twice that she cannot provide that nuanced and informed investigation. As such, we are compelled to look to others to answer this pertinent question.
Mitt Romney, Fox News, and the Mormon Question: A Few Questions for Discussion
Christian, adjective: of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings : the Christian Church.
informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.[1]
A few weeks ago CNN published an interview with Tricia Erickson, a dedicated Evangelical critic of Mormonism, wherein it was repeatedly affirmed that neither Mitt Romney nor the Church he belongs to is authentically Christian. On Sunday, July 17, 2011 the Deseret News printed an article that reported how “‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Mitt Romney was not a Christian during her program this morning.” The pertinent statement by Ms. Earhardt, as reported by the Deseret News, is as follows:
“Can (Gov. Rick Perry) get in and raise money with Mitt Romney? That I don’t know,” said host Dave Briggs.
“There are a lot of Republicans who think he can’t,” replied co-host Clayton Morris.
“Well the Christian coalition — I think (Perry) can get a lot of money from that base because (of) Romney obviously not being a Christian,” said co-host Earhardt. “Rick Perry, he’s always on talk shows — on Christian talk shows — he has days of prayer in Texas.”
I am puzzled by this statement. What is it that is so “obvious” that proves Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Presumably Ms. Earhardt has in mind the fact that Romney is a Latter-day Saint and because Latter-day Saints are not Christians ergo Mitt Romney is not a Christian.
This of course brings up the question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians. As Professor Stephen E. Robinson has written[2], there are typically six categories that the arguments of excluding Mormons from being Christian fall under, viz.,
1. The Exclusion by Definition (Mormons are excluded from being Christian because of ad hoc idiosyncratic definitions of “Christian” and “Christianity” offered by sectarians who deviate from the standard English lexical definition.)
2. The Exclusion by Misrepresentation (“Latter-day Saints… [are] judged to be non-Christian for things they do not believe, whether these things are fabrications, distortions, or anomalies.”[3])
3. The Exclusion by Name-Calling (Hurling unsavory epithets such as “cult” at the Church in an attempt to alienate or estrange outsiders and shock members. As with the “Exclusion by Definition”, in most cases the epithets are idiosyncratic definitions that go beyond the accepted standard English definition.)
4. The Historical or Traditional Exclusion (Mormons do not accept certain “historical” or “traditional” Christian beliefs or practices, and thus are not Christian.)
5. The Canonical or Biblical Exclusion (Mormons have an open canon of scripture, and accept additional books as canonical which are not accepted by other Christian denominations. Thus, Mormons are not Christian.)
6. The Doctrinal Exclusion (Mormons do not accept “orthodox” Christian doctrines, and hold to “heretical” views of the nature of God and scripture, to name only two. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian.)
The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is a horse that has been beaten mercilessly in recent years, and so I do not wish to launch into a full exploration at this point. Suffice it to say that the Latter-day Saints are positively appalled at this accusation, and have responded vigorously to critical arguments[4]. However, I do wish to ask a few questions for discussion that I feel are pertinent to this debate.
1. First and foremost, what is “Christianity” and who therefore can rightly be called “Christian”? On what basis/criteria does one define these terms?
1. Who is allowed to define who is Christian and who isn’t? By what authority or on what grounds does this individual/group/Church, etc., claim the right to be the final arbiters in deciding who and who isn’t Christian?
2. Mormons are accused of not being Christian because they do not accept “orthodox” beliefs. What is “orthodoxy” and who is allowed to define “orthodoxy”? On what basis was this definition of “orthodoxy” established?
3. Mormon doctrine is often alleged to be contrary to “biblical teaching”. Who has the right to establish what “biblical doctrine” is? By what authority is such established? What methodological and/or exegetical tools were employed to establish this standard?
4. Is doctrinal difference enough to exclude Mormons from being Christians? What about Jesus’ teaching that his true disciples [i.e. Christians] are those who keep his commandments and love their neighbors (John 13:34-35)? In other words, is any weight to be given to Jesus’ criteria for true and false prophets (or, in this case, disciples) as found in Matthew 7:15-20 when it comes to evaluating who is a Christian and who isn’t?
5. If Mormons are to be excluded from being Christian because they do not conform to “traditional” or “historic” Christianity, then what of those disciples of Christ who antedate the arrival of these “traditional” doctrines (eg. Nicene Trinitarianism, creatio ex nihilo, etc.)? Are they likewise not Christian? [Hint: This is a question about maintaining consistent standards in evaluating who is and who isn’t a Christian]
These are some questions that I put forth for discussion. Those who wish to exclude the Latter-day Saints as being Christian must, I contend, first adequately answer these questions.
Notes:
[1]: Oxford American Dictionary, s.v. Christian.
[2] Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991).
[3]: Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, 21, emphasis in original.
[4]: See especially Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Words Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992). This wonderful text is available online at the website of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. See here.
Joseph Smith: The Profile of a Prophet
The following PDF attachment is an exploration into Joseph Smith meeting the criteria of an authentic prophet. It was originally part of my review of Joel Kramer’s anti-Mormon DVD The Bible vs. Joseph Smith. Upon the wise suggestion of Greg Smith, a fellow FAIR volunteer, I excised this portion of my review and rewrote parts of it to stand alone as a separate article. As you may discover upon reading, this article does have a sort of devotional flavor to it. But I hope that the main point behind this article is easily recognizable.
With that in mind, I offer for the reader’s consideration Joseph Smith: The Profile of a Prophet for those interested. Feel free to download and keep a copy if you wish.
A Note on the First Visions of Paul and Joseph Smith
Luke reports three accounts of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts. The first is in Acts 9:1-9. The second appears in Acts 22:6-11. And the third is recorded in Acts 26:12-20. Below are these three accounts reprinted as they appear in the King James Version:
Acts 9:1-9
1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Acts 22:6-11
6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
11And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
Acts 26:12-20
12Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Notice how Luke attributes additional words to the Lord Jesus to Paul in his third account than in his first two. In the first account, Jesus tells Paul to “arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts 9:6). In the second report, Luke describes Jesus telling Paul to “arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do” (Acts 22:10). But notice in the third account how Luke quotes Jesus as saying much more to Paul than in the previous two accounts:
And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me (Acts 26:15-18).
This added information in the third report from Luke is understandable, considering the context. In Acts 26 Paul is relating to Agrippa the reason behind his imprisonment and the ruckus he had created with the Jews at the Temple. Luke reports that Paul got into hot water with his pious Jewish peers for not only preaching against the Law of Moses but also for allegedly bringing “Greeks also into the temple, and pollut[ing] this holy place” (Acts 21:28). So grievous was Paul’s perceived profaning of the temple that his zealous would-be executioners immediately took him outside the precincts of the temple to summarily dispatch him (Acts 21:30-31). Fortunately for Paul the clatter alerted the Roman authorities, who took him into their custody before he could be killed (Acts 21:32-40).
As such, Paul had a lot of explaining to do on his part. Why was he so hated amongst his Jewish peers to the point of blood lust? Furthermore, as a Jew what business did he have associating with Gentiles? Paul gives Agrippa the answer, as reported by Luke: Jesus had specifically charged Paul to witness unto the Gentiles, and to win them over from their Satanic paganism to forgiveness and sanctification through Christ. Hence, we can infer, Paul gave this additional detail to Agrippa because of its expediency and relevance to his defense before the Gentile king. It certainly would have done Paul no good to relate this revolutionary (not to mention blasphemous) information to his Jewish enemies in Acts 22. As a matter of fact, these same Jewish foes patiently listened to Paul’s story until he described a hitherto unrecorded vision in the Jerusalem temple wherein he was commissioned by the Lord to depart unto the Gentiles. Upon hearing this unbearably shocking detail they cut him off and were driven to madness as they demanded his life (Acts 22:17-22). Furthermore, Luke had no need to provide this information in Acts 9 since he has yet to detail the ministry of the Apostles to the Gentiles beginning in Acts 10. It would throw off the development of the narrative history for Luke to provide a full account of the Lord’s words to Paul before the reader even knows what is going on with the Gentiles in the first place. But, once Luke has firmly established Paul’s role as the apostle to the Gentiles, and given the immediate context of Paul’s account to Agrippa, it makes perfect sense why he would omit this information until the third account in Acts 26.
What does all this have to do with Joseph Smith’s own theophany in 1820? Critics of Joseph Smith are eager to point out that his first recorded account of his vision written in 1832 is not as detailed as his accounts written in subsequent years, especially his 1838 account that was later canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. Surely, these critics contend, Joseph Smith was evolving his story over time to suit his purposes. His story becomes grander and more spectacular with each telling, in what can only be Joseph’s desperate attempt to bolster his prophetic legitimacy in the face of widespread apostasy and doubt within the Church.
However, this argument is unwarranted, and is especially dangerous for sectarian critics of Joseph Smith. I shall allow the esteemed Professor Richard L. Anderson to explain, since he has done a better job in succinctly demonstrating the sectarians’ dilemma than I could ever hope to:
Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of a vivid experience that is retold more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus his most detailed first-vision account came after several others–at the time that he began his formal history that he saw as one of the key responsibilities of his life (see JS-H 1:1 2, 17 20). In Paul’s case there is the parallel. His most detailed account of Christ’s call is the last recorded mention of several. Thus before Agrippa, Paul related how the glorified Savior first prophesied his work among the gentiles; this was told only then because Paul was speaking before a gentile audience (see Acts 26:16 – 18). Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.[1]
Thus, for me at least, when faced with anti-Mormon allegations against the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the phrase “he who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones” comes to mind.
Notes:
[1]: Richard L. Anderson, Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith.
A Reply to Ms. Erickson
CNN has published an interview with a woman named Tricia Erickson, who has spoken out on why Mitt Romney is not qualified to be president of the United States. Instead of criticizing Romney for his political platforms, which is what one would expect in a discussion surrounding a political election, she instead has focused on (surprise!) his religion. She has made some rather pernicious swipes at Mormonism that are true to form amongst zealous Evangelical counter-cultists.
I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.
—
I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.
For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.
First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.
Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.
Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.
Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.
Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973
Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.
